If that's how it works out, that's OK. The martials are the star of the show during the encounters leading up to the boss battle, while the casters rely mostly on wands and hold their spells in reserve. Then, in the boss battle, the casters can go nuts.
this is a blatantly obvious issue
I played a cleric through a campaign and never noticed it. '+1 to caster level' is the best class feature there is. I never even contemplated taking a prestige class. And my channelling and domain powers got better too:
When controlling their enemies, you don't need your players to understand or see the DR notation. It's not their job to calculate the impact of the DR on their attacks, it's yours. Just ask them what they're attacking with if you're not sure, and tell them "the enemy seems somewhat resistant to that attack". If they make a knowledge check say, "You think a Cold Iron weapon would be useful here."
You could also print out something like the following and stick it to their side of your GM screen (if you have one) to point at when they get it wrong:
A werewolf has DR/Silver; this means Damage Resistance that doesn't work against Silver weapons.
A +3 weapon defeats DR/Silver or DR/Cold Iron.
Damage Resistance can only apply to attacks that inflict Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage; it does not affect energy damage.
I was just thinking of mak8ng things less complex. Instead of adding more to the characters, take away from the monsters, The big six are just adding numbers to the characters, so I was wondering if just sending weaker monsters would work. Like making APL -1 average, APL challenging and so forth.
It will affect some character classes more than others, and it will affect them more the higher their level. (Level 1 characters will be unaffected.)
Armor Class is especially dependent on wealth for most front-liners. Take away a level 20 Fighter's +5 Ring of Protection, +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, +5 Celestial Platemail and +6 Dexterity Enhancement bonus and suddenly his AC is about 20 points lower. Even APL-7 monsters will be able to hit him almost every time.
This will be less of a problem if there's good caster support - spells like Greater Magic Weapon and Shield of Faith will suddenly be really valuable.
While you might be able to run a campaign like that, you'd probably have to tailor the encounters to your specific group. There's no simple 'APL-2' modification that will reliably work.
Yeah, even if you thought you were reading it right you would have to realize "This monster can in two rounds successfully drain away the health of most PC characters of appropriate level". Few PCs start with much more than 12 con, which would only be 2 rounds under that GM's interpretation. Which sounds obviously insane to me.
Using the GM's (bad) ruling, it takes at least one round to grapple, and then two more rounds to kill the PC through Con damage; three more if they've got a decent Con and someone to heal the HP damage. So that gives the entire party three rounds to kill it while it's stuck there, maintaining its grapple. Dangerous, but I wouldn't call it insane.
A CR4 hydra can also probably kill a PC in three rounds, if it's allowed to focus on them; it does 37 damage a round on average if all its attacks hit.
New Details from Glass Cannon Podcast Pathfinder Playtest Impressions - Ability damage is gone, Magic Missile mechanics, crit / fumble discussion
I think crits on a twenty are valuable so that there’s a chance to crit against hard-to-hit bosses. Having no chance of critting takes away some excitement.
Any boss you can hit on a 10 in this system can be critted, and there's no need to confirm. (I have no idea what typical attack and AC numbers will be in this system, so I don't know how common uncrittable bosses will be...)
Higher AC bosses in PF1 could be critted, but if they're that hard to hit, the confirm would usually fail.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Hey, it worked for these guys.
Man, those guys were really abusing the rules. They pool their money, buy one adamantine shield between them, and use it for everything; parrying, bashing, knocking locked doors down, ranged attacks...
As for a bad die roll/mistake dooming a character, um, yeah?
Dooming the adventure, not the character. If we're on a genuine strict race against time, then every setback becomes a disaster. ("Seelah died! Now we have to either go back to the temple for a Raise Dead, in which case the ritual will be completed and the world will end, or we can struggle on at a massive disadvantage and probably all die and the world will end, while Seelah's player just waits around for five hours.")
Choosing when to rest is a good way for groups to self-balance (which is a lot easier than writing an adventure that is perfectly balanced for everyone). The competent groups can fight for longer and the inexperienced groups can rest sooner.
For that to work well you need a party that is motivated to keep going, but a get out excuse if they can't. ("You must rescue your friend who is probably being tortured! You must hurry, but not so much that you get killed!")
As for the resting for how ever long after each and every fight I would look at Paizo APs and Modules, the enemies aren’t static, sitting around waiting for the PCs to open the door. They patrol. They regroup. They call in reinforcements.
That's not a bad way to do it, but most Paizo APs include large dungeons that you can't possibly complete in a day. So you're going to have to rest at some point, and that means the bad guys are guaranteed to have time to prepare. At which point, there's not much incentive to hurry; it's already too late.
Paizo also uses a lot of fake deadlines, which works pretty well. ("Quick! The villain is going to destroy the world any day now! Just kidding: when you get there you discover the ritual went wrong and turned the villain into a soul-eating demon instead, and now you accidentally released him from the magical wards keeping him trapped.") But if the game design depends on it too much, you have to make the story revolve around the four-encounters-a-day template, even if that's not the story you want to tell.
Kingmaker, for example, has very little time pressure, and you rarely fight more than once in a day. If the gameplay can't accommodate that, Kingmaker doesn't work. I'm pretty sure at least one AP has so many forced battles in the first book, and the party doesn't have a wand of healing yet, that without a really well-balanced party it's nearly impossible to survive.
Unlimited healing consumables can also reduce martial/caster disparity. If healing hit points is easy, then casters have an incentive to hold back their best spells whenever possible and let the Fighter have his chance to shine.
(Anyway, like every other design issue being discussed in these forums, you can't please everyone. I don't really have a replacement for the attrition paradigm...)
I wouldn't be surprised if PF2 moves away from this somewhat and favors "poison/energy drain that does hit point damage/gives you a penalty to attack until you next rest" over lingering status effects.
I wonder how many players find that sort of penalty exciting, as opposed to annoying?
It’s not that it’s boring or silly but that it breaks the design of the game. The Adventures and encounters aren’t built under the assumption that you are able to heal up completely after every fight without spending significant resources to do so. Stockpiling cheap wands of CLW breaks that assumption and makes non super challenging fights basically meaningless.
People have been using healing wands for years. The adventure writers have probably heard about it by now.
I'm not convinced the 'attrition' concept is particularly valuable. Game balance that relies on wearing down the group requires a very specific degree of urgency in order to work. If you're in an urgent race against time, then it becomes really hard to balance; a mistake or bad die roll can make it impossible to continue and dooms the adventure. If there's no real urgency (like in a game based around exploration) then there's little to prevent the PCs retreating and resting after every battle.
We could convert to base 8 or base 9 a lot easier. We wouldn't need to add any new symbols to the ASCII table, and it's a lot easier to reduce the number of fingers someone has than to add new ones.
Is it possible that wands will now be usable by anyone with no UMD requirements, and fairly cheap to buy, with resonance limits replacing the old limitations? If so, that would probably be a step up for martials - if there's something you think you might need (Charm Person, Fly, See Invisibility, Resist Energy, Protection from Evil...) you could get it, without relying on a caster or a massive expenditure on potions.
Chess Pwn wrote:
It should be AT LEAST 3300. IS there any healing item that is somewhat similar? Cause that can help show if the price needs to be higher.
A scroll of Heal (1650gp)?
This item is similar but has no caster level / UMD requirements. And it's much harder to use offensively against undead.
Twice the price seems fair, unless you really want to preserve the privileges of divine casters. Maybe a bit more, to protect Brew Potion as a feat (if you could make anything as an elixir, why would you ever use a potion?).
Anyone sensible uses wands of CLW for most out-of-combat healing. Wands of CMW are a waste of precious money and healing spells are a waste of precious life-saving spell slots.
If your group prefers a less cost-efficient method, that's fine, but healing with wands of CMW isn't much different in its effect on gameplay. You're still rolling about the same number of dice, it just takes a fewer rounds (rather than less table time) and costs about three times as much.
The question isn't, "Why doesn't the GM just restrict access to CLW wands?" It's, "Is there a problem with the PCs using lots of CLW wands?"
The main impact on gameplay of healing with unlimited-use consumables is that it makes it very hard for the game designers to gauge encounters-per-day. A wand-healing group can handle maybe eight encounters a day, while a group that relies on spell slots to heal might only be able to handle four.
So the purpose of Resonance may be to make the encounters-per-day math actually work.
Using this ability?
From the FAQs:
So you could start from medium (1d4) and use Enlarge Person to get the damage up to 1d6 and then use Strong Jaw to get the damage up to 2d6. But by the look of it you can't benefit from Strong Jaw and retracting a tentacle at the same time.
Advice: You're probably better off not multiclassing into an arcane class with Enlarge Person. A potion of Enlarge Person is only 50gp, or you could ask an ally to cast it on you.
The best way to increase your tentacle damage is to increase your Strength, since that increases both attack rolls and damage rolls.
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
It feels like a solution in search of a problem.
I think the meta-problem here is that practically every aspect of the game is a problem to some people and not others. Stopping in the middle of a heroic quest to roll dice for wand-jabs, or drink twenty potions of healing, is ridiculous, or perfectly fine, depending on your point of view.
Identifying Fireball isn't really the problem because even if you don't know the spell, you'll see the fireball. Using Charm Person to try to con or seduce people would seem like a more common threat.
And it might depend on the level of social trust in the area. In a bad neighborhood, if you see someone walking around with a machete, you run away. In a better neighborhood, you might think, "Oh, he must be planning to cut up a melon or something."
Suggestion: Add a new consumable - I'll call it a Healing Reservoir. Anyone can use it. It heals 100 points of damage, at a rate of 10HP per round spent holding it and not moving. It costs, say, 300gp.
No more wasting table time rolling dice for healing after a battle. Just work out how much healing you need and deduct it from the Reservoir's total.
(This assumes, of course, that we want PCs on full HP at the start of every encounter. If we want more of an 'attrition' game where you're trying to conserve your health over a series of battles, then limited healing based on short rests, spells, and Resonance items makes more sense.)
Suggestion: print all gameplay-relevant distances in 'tiles' or 'squares'. And then it doesn't really matter if a tile is a metre or a metre and a half.
Saleem Halabi wrote:
Yeah, I still don't understand that level of paranoia. People keep using the spells as weapon analogy, but that isn't right. Spells are tools, some of which happen to be weapons. Magic is stupidly common on Golarion. Seeing a random stranger cast a spell on a crowded street (one whose body language isn't screaming "I'm about to rob you") and there is no reason to assume it is hostile.
Knives are tools. If someone pulls a knife on you unexpectedly, you're probably not going to take it well.
How about this as an analogy: Spells are like drugs. If you inject yourself with something in public, people will be curious or suspicious. If you spray an unknown substance in someone's face, they'll be hostile. Where the magic is directed is very important.
A certain level of baseline realism is valuable. Can a level 1 commoner jump over a five/ten/twenty foot pit? Can they survive falling off a hundred foot cliff? Will they die if they try to fight a housecat? Can they cut a rope with a sword? With a hammer?
If things don't act vaguely realistically in the first place, transcending normal human limitations (for example, by becoming a level 20 Fighter) doesn't mean much, since these limitations never existed in the world in the first place. And it's much harder for newbies to know what their characters can do, if they can't rely on the assumption that things work vaguely like they do in real life.
(Not that 'realism' and 'accurate nomenclature' have much to do with one another.)
I don't believe that a creature with no arms and a serpentine tongue is going to use the exact same verbal and somatic components as a human. But Spellcraft still works on weird creatures. This may be because you're not identifying the components, you're identifying the Manifestations. The gestures aren't the same but the magic sparkles are.
I suggested above that magic is the equivalent of injecting people with mystery syringes; something that would be scary to ordinary people.
But maybe magic is like cars. Cars are incredibly dangerous. Everyone driving a car has the ability to murder people at a whim, or kill people by accident. But we put up with cars in cities because they're useful.
Having an antimagic field to keep all magic out of a fantasy city sounds like having an anti-technology field in a modern city. This anti-tech field would keep you safe from guns and car accidents, but also prevent medicine, electricity and vehicles from working. If that anti-tech field existed, would you choose to live in one?
Would you ban magic if it meant losing Cure Light Wounds and Remove Disease?
Burning a spell of that level at that level to heal a mere 80% of high average damage is 'works just fine'?
Sounds about right to me.
If you're healing 80% of the damage taken, then you've reduced the enemy to 20% effectiveness (with a 100% success rate, unlike save-negate spells and attacks).
It's an expensive use of spell slots, but reducing the enemy to 20% effectiveness is basically auto-win (unless the enemy was five times as powerful as the group in the first place) so it shouldn't be something a cleric can do all day.
Magic is this wild powerful thing, trying to conform it to mundane standards just kills its wonder, it just looks like a fictional utilitarian tool, this fictional counterpart of technology.
To me, 'wild' magic implies magic that can go catastrophically wrong at any time. Try to summon an elemental and you might find yourself dragged into the plane of fire. Try to turn into a dragon and you might forget you were ever a human.
It's a hard thing to balance. Is it a good idea to allow people to dump all physical stats and still be good at combat? Is it better to restrict people to a small, unexciting list of shape options, or to allow PCs to turn into anything they want, which encourages players to comb through hundreds of options looking for something overpowered?
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance.
Backwards compatibility is the difference between PF2 starting out with lots of adventure paths available, and starting out with none. (Or one, or however many they've written/converted by the time the rules come out.)
I would I have every city with an army always have antimagic field level 4, and anything cast above that cast in town was punishable by death via well prepared foil casting inquisitor archer guards or whatever.
That would make it kind of hard to get healing...
Still, I do think there should be social consequences. Imagine if someone you were talking to suddenly stabbed you with a syringe of an unknown substance, then said, "Don't worry! It's only truth serum! I just wanted to make sure I could trust what you were saying!"
The only issue I've ever had doing that in the past is that PCs have a tendency to worship gods who aren't part of the pantheon of the world I'm running.
I doubt Pf2e will be much worse.
The players I know tend to skim past the lore/flavor elements to the mechanical effects anyway.
If I'm trying to run a game set in, say, Westeros, the biggest problem isn't the lore, it's the game mechanics giving players options and abilities that don't fit the setting.
Oh yeah, you're right. I somehow always ignore/forget that bit.
I guess the difference from other systems with short rest mechanics is, an hour of work for a tiny amount of healing for one character doesn't feel remotely adequate for extending the adventuring day. It even costs 10gp worth of healer's kit to use; compare that to 15gp per use of a wand of Cure Light Wounds, which doesn't take an hour, and isn't limited to once per day.
The thing about the "free healing during a short rest" everyone always praises about 4th/5th editions and wants added to Pathfinder is that Pathfinder already had that in the form of a healer's kit and a heal skill check.
(Checks Core Rulebook.)
Nope. Heal skill only works during a long rest or to keep someone from bleeding out.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
If you are okay with limiting casters to only 3-5 spells per day that are meaningful in combat, does that mean you are also okay with limiting martials to 3-5 attacks per day at their highest values?
That sounds like level 1 Pathfinder with a Wizard and a Barbarian. The Barbarian gets 5 rounds of rage, the Wizard gets three to five Level 1 spells.
And I would be surprised if lower level spells (Invisibility, Haste, Fly, Fireball...) ever cease to be meaningful by, say, level 10.
I completely agree, the difference is you're in favor of me having to spend extra resources for that logic to work, as opposed to the current edition, in which I don't need to spend resources for that to work.
Yeah, that's part of the disparity that people have been complaining about for years.
But if spells start out a bit more powerful, it balances out, more or less.
Then you said I need lower level spells known for it to work, however that makes the lower level spell slots useless.
Let's say you're a level 4 Pathfinder Sorcerer.
You know Magic Missile and Invisibility (and some other level 1 spells).
You can use your low level spell slots to cast Magic Missile, and you can use your high level slots to cast Invisibility or Magic Missile. All your Magic Missiles are the same, no matter what slot you use: they do 2d4+2.
Under the alternative system, your Magic Missile does 3d4+3 from Level 1 slots, and 4d4+4 from Level 2 slots. Your level 1 slots are still useful, and your Level 2 slots are still better, even in situations where Invisibility won't help.
Neither your slots nor your spells known are useless.
So I guess my first question is how much of my existing THOUSANDS of dollars invested in pathfinder are now worthless?
Depends. Do you need a constant supply of new official material to be able to play Pathfinder 1e?
Will Pathfinder 1E be supported or will it become D&D 4th edition, i.e. non existent?
My guess: It will not receive significant official support, but there will be 3PP products.
I'd like some kind of clarification as to weather this is a modification of 1st with existing material still relevant or a complete replacement rendering everything we've bought to date obsolete?
Based on what we've seen so far, the changes are significant enough that it will be some effort to convert things between the two systems.
If I have to invest in a new system and learn a new system that isn't compatible with all of my existing pathfinder stuff, what possible incentive is there to NOT switch to D&D?
Some possible incentives: You prefer PF1e to D&D. You like Paizo's adventures more than D&D 5e adventures. You want to wait and see if you like Pf2e better than D&D. Your friends don't want to switch to D&D.